Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

Amazing video, thank you for posting.

Read some of the coments on that video and felt really stupid I did not think of this before:

They say thermate cannot melt steel.
Then they say jet fuel caused melting.

How is that possible when jet fuel does not burn hotter then thermate ?

Originally posted by Mastermook
This was a great thread, wow, very interesting im surprised there isn't more questioning of this in the media, im googling it right now to see what else is out there on the coverage.
Im a little confused though, In the video he says there must have been thermite in the building..but is he suggesting it was planted there when they built the towers? or someone places it there before 9/11? how would they place it there i the beams if it was already build? can someone clarify how thermite got into the building beams to begin with?

If you haven't done so, I would suggest going back to page 2 at look at unity-99's post regarding the celestial events that occurred that day with Pluto and Saturn. As above, so below.

A quick summary of the coincidence:

Opening day of the twin towers in 1973 Pluto was in the gemini (twins) constellation, Saturn was in Sagittarius
On 911 the planets were in the same position. Freemasons believe in the Egyptian astrological alignments whom coined the term "as above, so below" which in essence means mirroring what happens in the heavens on earth.

If all these coincidences are in fact reality, then it stands that those buildings were planned to come down on 911 from the moment the design was first conceptualized. So, Thermate was pre-planted in the towers. How long does thermate stay active? I don't know but it is rather startling.

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Something to think about...
Regardless about how many of these theories surface, the government and the majority of our citizens have moved onward. It doesn't matter what 'outsiders' think at this point. Jonathan Cole? Who the heck is Jonathan Cole? Is this another stranger popping out of nowhere? Seriously, unless he is a well-known individual who works for the government, writes endless scientific books, or has won awards for his contributions to society, I don't see why I or anyone else should believe in anything he says.

Jonathan Cole is another complete stranger looking for fame.

edit on 20-12-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Just because you have never heard of him refutes the scientific evidence he has provided? No wonder we can't get to the bottom of this with thinking like yours. Like I said before, a fine line between truthers and OS believers. Look the other way, nothing to see here.

Originally posted by samkent
Ask yourself what the painters would be painting on a finished building? Drywall?
Can a thin coating of this magical thermite paint burn long enough and hot enough to affect the steel? Remember they spray paint so it has to be thin and still act like paint.

Spray-on fireproofing is over an inch thick. Agree?

so now what,.
what will become of his information. and who is going to fight with it.
who will be found out
This is all good info but it will be useless if it isnt brought to the people of America
Cause MOST of the people of america have been force fed the info that it was Muslim
or Bin Ladin that caused this.
Just how will this be told,... good luck to the messinger

reply to post by R3KR


The jet fuel causing the implosion is a crock and whomever promotes it does not know one iota about the properties of jet fuel as an accelerant.

Two numbers need to be focused on regarding this situation.

The flame point, which is temperature an OUTSIDE source needs to be to ignite a fire, and the flame point, which is the temperature a substance will continue to produce vapors for a prolonged fire.

Kerosene or Jet fuel A is incredibly stable regarding these two numbers.
That is why it was used as a lighting source for so long.

The flame point of Kerosene is about 100 degrees and the fire point is about 110 degrees with the maximum open air burning temperature at about 500 to 700 degrees.
And that is really pushing the envelope on the max open air temp.

This is not anywhere near the temps needed to even weaken steel.

Read about the Cardington Fire Tests.

Here is a quote from the source

In the Cardington full-scale fire tests there had been a strong indication that concrete slabs survive to very high fire temperatures, maintaining the vertical compartmentation of a building, due to a self-equilibrating membrane action

Originally posted by stirling
Jeebus folks, there never was any doubt of the way the towers fell.
1)The possibility of free fall speed being attained in a buildng collapsing normally with resistances being unequal, and the lower floors intact(as a very many of the towers were) is absolutely nil.
2)The pictures of the steel clumns which were practically burned into swiss cheese...no ordinary fire can do that even if it burned for days.
3)the fact that though the damage was mostly localised to the area which was hit by aircraft,the two buildings both fell straight down.and into their own footprints...(this is also impossible without the controlled use explosives to direct the manner in which the building disintegrates.
4)Exactly like other demolitions of similar structures, a high volume of cement dust bursts out of the periphery of the towers, and creates a huge cloud that follows the destruction downwards as the building comes apart.
5)large amounts of molten steel puddle in the basement and remain hot for weeks after the event.
6)the "collapse" of bldg #7 WTC is identical to the towers, and it was announced on BBC television a full twenty minutes BEFORE it fell!
7)There are many other reasons to be suspicious of the events of 9/11,but as far as the towers comming down as shown on national TV, it is obvious to most that there had to be explosives involved, in order to obtain the
minimum of collateral damage to other structures.The damage would have been an order of magnitude greater if they had toppled over rather than falling vertically into their own relative footprints.
No! Dont even bother Good ol dave! or the rest of you CIA plants...nobody is gonna confuse or convince me it wasnt so.
The people who argue over this stuff constantly are wasting their time,there is NO way in hell that those three buildings came down from the damages done to them.
It HAD to be assisted by thermate, thermite or other similar steel cutting substances....period.
Any reasonably bright 10 th grader could tell you the same thing....No matter what, who or high water,
The towers had to have been controlled demo.

You just iterated a list that's been iterated and iterated again for years without the desired result.

people wanna see cold hard evidence and proof, and thats what this video clearly shows

S+F

reply to post by bsbray11


Good work!

All the video shows is that thermite can melt steel.

That's known for at least 30yrs. Maybe Nat Geo got something wrong, but that is all this video demonstrates.

You cannot jump from showing that Nat Geo got something wrong to hey-presto, the rest of my whacky theory is therefore true.

Doesn't work like that.

Originally posted by ommadawn
All the video shows is that thermite can melt steel.

That's known for at least 30yrs. Maybe Nat Geo got something wrong, but that is all this video demonstrates.

Please don't be disingeneous. It is not about thermite being able to cut steel as it is thermite and thermate being able to horizontally cut through a vertical steel column to sever it. Which the debunkers have said is impossible since day one. Only now to have to eat crow.

I guarantee I can find a post for every debunker here that has claimed as such.

Very well presented video...

But i remain unconvinced. Someone had to have put the product there. Someone had to have provided the product.

And if someone knows something, then we, as a public would know already. The pure logistics of this being pulled off by a government and then actually making it in to reality without a single sheet of paper or actual personell coming forth is inconceivable.

Cmon... this is a government that cant even figure out basic health care... and we are supposed to believe they masterminded this entire event?

Just stop and let the reality sink in...

Look where all the "dust poofs" come out of the tower... were those floors shut down for fireproofing prior? Lets try and get to this logically as opposed to "South Park Logic" where:

1. Crash planes into buildings laden with nanothermate goodies
2. ???????
3. Profit.

Originally posted by ommadawn
All the video shows is that thermite can melt steel.

That's known for at least 30yrs. Maybe Nat Geo got something wrong, but that is all this video demonstrates.

You cannot jump from showing that Nat Geo got something wrong to hey-presto, the rest of my whacky theory is therefore true.

Doesn't work like that.

The point that continuously appears to be getting missed (apparently on both sides) even though it has been brought up on this very thread a few times is that this tiny shred of experimental evidence fits the de-facto eyewitness and video evidence much better than the NIST reports and potentially reveals that yes, someone did compromise the buildings in preparation for the plane impacts.

Thus in the presence of new information, a new and better investigation needs to be conducted with private civilian oversight. This doesn't lend credence to any "wacky" theory. It could be possible that another Al Qaeda cell rigged the building with charges under the guise of maintenance workers so that they would fall after the plane crash. Just because the OS has holes doesn't immediately mean the USG was responsible for the event.

DISCLAIMER: I have not made up my mind on who or what was responsible for the atrocity. My only decision thus far is that the events AS DESCRIBED by the unclassified 9/11 Commission report are insufficient and questionable. There are many theories that are better and many that are worse and some that are just plain nuts.

I have read a lot of "reported claims" of several floors of the WTC were closed for renovation prior to the planes striking on 9/11.

Does anyone know which floors were involved in this work and how they relate to the bright burning areas shown in the videos?

I am also wondering how these floors might be related to the areas of the planes impacting on each tower?

I am sure there were many many coincidences which took place that day, I can't help but wonder how many there were. Has anybody been keeping count?

reply to post by Velocismo


I recommend you go back to school. A lot of things can happen right under your nose without you noticing. I bet you're the type of person that still believes that LHO was the person that shot JFK. Seriously, go back to school.

oops!

reply to post by Velocismo


"MARVIN P. BUSH"

There's your search criteria.....type those words into your search and the rest will clearly fall into place. It's all about connecting the dots.

If you are still unsure after that then search for "SECURACOM"

Happy Searching....

Originally posted by ommadawn
All the video shows is that thermite can melt steel.

That's known for at least 30yrs. Maybe Nat Geo got something wrong, but that is all this video demonstrates.

You cannot jump from showing that Nat Geo got something wrong to hey-presto, the rest of my whacky theory is therefore true.

Doesn't work like that.

Hi omma,
It's much more than that. The fact that NG with all their resources, has got it wrong cannot be ignored. John Cole did with a bit of this and a bit of that thermate, and all it's effects as per 9/11. One of the biggest doubts I had about thermate "cutter" charges was the idea of it crosscutting through the steel, John Cole shows in his demo that crosscutting is not necessary. The stuff found at ground zero was even more sophisticated. I do agree that the actual scenario using thermate still has to be nailed down or rejected, but it was never looked at by any official report in the first place, but then neither were "conventional" explosives... after an urban terrorist attack? Attacks like that usually have two or more fronts to be considered, the official reports considered only one incident relating to two jets.

reply to post by hdutton


I know several acquaintances who worked in and around the towers. One of them worked in WTC 2 on the higher floors (above 80) and he was told not to come into work that day (9/11) until after noon, but if you wanted to catch up on work you were able to still come in (poor hard working souls). He also told me that a few weeks prior there was a lot of "renovating" being done. No one really questioned it, it seemed standard to "upkeep" such buildings. No one was the wiser.
He lives in Manhatten and was able to witness the aftermath from his building. He said echoes of "explosions" woke him (he was sleeping in since he didnt have to be at work till noon).
I will never forget what I witnessed live on TV that day in my classroom. I got so scared. Ironically I was in history class and we were discussing "False Flag" operations in history (loved my teacher in that class cuz he didnt follow the curriculum and strived for his students to debate intelligently).

That was frickin awesome!

Thanks for Posting that.

S&F

reply to post by Velocismo


All the US government had to do is step aside and let another government and military do this. For arguments sake let's say Israel did it. Do you think you would ever hear anyone come forth from their Government or Military? Our military has done things in the past to other countries but do you hear men and women of our military coming forth about any of it? Rarely.